Jump to content

Another Mass Shooting!, This Time in Oregon


Recommended Posts

In the last two weekends in Chicago, 98 people were shot and 13 people were killed. Not a peep from Obama about any of it.

 

It doesn't fit the Narrative.

 

 

Nor will we here a peep from the administration about this being a "hate crime"

 

.

More people shot means we don't have a problem with guns?

 

Wow, B-Man is a total idiot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

CRIMINOLOGIST JAMES ALAN FOX: Umpqua shooting – a tragedy, not a trend.

 

“I certainly don’t mean to minimize the suffering of the Oregon victims and their families, but the shooting spree is not a reflection of more deadly times. Consider the facts. According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.”

 

 

 

Hillary’s got an email scandal that won’t go away. Obama has a series of Mideast debacles of near-Bibilical proportions. Naturally, they — and their loyal allies in the press — would rather we be hysterical about something else.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More people shot means we don't have a problem with guns?

 

Wow, B-Man is a total idiot

Everyone knows there is a problem. Its how to solve it that people differ their opinions. How are those very strict gun regulations working out for chicago? Weird that just making more laws didnt stop criminals from being criminals dont you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a tough one. Not sure I can. Only amendment to mention heavy regulation, though. And its the gun amendment ;)

 

What's you take on it? Oh ya, you never have a take on anything, you just ask pointless questions

The militia is to be well regulated, the guns are not. Were the guns to be well regulated, the document would have specifically called for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone knows there is a problem. Its how to solve it that people differ their opinions. How are those very strict gun regulations working out for chicago? Weird that just making more laws didnt stop criminals from being criminals dont you think?

Right, I'd like to address that point about a local law in a nation awash with guns. If one area outlaws guns but the surrounding areas don't, criminals will still get guns. Ok, maybe the problem needs to be addressed in a larger way.

The militia is to be well regulated, the guns are not. Were the guns to be well regulated, the document would have specifically called for it.

Ever read Jefferson's first inaugural address? Who did he say was the militia? And if they are regulated, what does that include?

 

 

Seems to prop the door wide open to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a tough one. Not sure I can. Only amendment to mention heavy regulation, though. And its the gun amendment ;)

 

What's you take on it? Oh ya, you never have a take on anything, you just ask pointless questions

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/181519-another-mass-shooting-this-time-in-oregon/?p=3707334

 

It even starts with "Here's my take on the issue." :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRIMINOLOGIST JAMES ALAN FOX: Umpqua shooting a tragedy, not a trend.

 

I certainly dont mean to minimize the suffering of the Oregon victims and their families, but the shooting spree is not a reflection of more deadly times. Consider the facts. According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.

 

 

 

Hillarys got an email scandal that wont go away. Obama has a series of Mideast debacles of near-Bibilical proportions. Naturally, they and their loyal allies in the press would rather we be hysterical about something else.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Does it matter what the trend is? The point is that its too much, too common, senseless and unacceptable

 

Krauthammers Take: Obamas 100 Percent Knee Jerk Reaction Came When Bodies Still Warm

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424970/krauthammers-take-obamas-100-percent-knee-jerk-reaction-came-when-bodies-still-warm-nr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Yesterdays Awful Shooting Really Such a Mystery?

by Jim Geraghty

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

 

 

 

 

Does the Media Encourage Mass Shootings?

By Mona Charon

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama's press conference was a good one, if anything long overdue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I'd like to address that point about a local law in a nation awash with guns. If one area outlaws guns but the surrounding areas don't, criminals will still get guns. Ok, maybe the problem needs to be addressed in a larger way.

Ever read Jefferson's first inaugural address? Who did he say was the militia? And if they are regulated, what does that include?

 

 

 

So if we outlaw guns in one area but not another the area that has them outlawed will be able to get guns from another area? You area brilliant. And I will give you credit for saying that criminals will still get guns. Anyone intent on causing harm to other will ALWAYS find a way to get the implement to do so. And if going forward we outlaw guns there will still be enough guns out there for the criminals to find. The issue is not the guns nor their availability. It's the fact that we have mentally ill people. Once again that's the common thread we can actually do something about. Stricter gun laws may help but won't do much to solve the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a tough one. Not sure I can. Only amendment to mention heavy regulation, though. And its the gun amendment ;)

 

What's you take on it? Oh ya, you never have a take on anything, you just ask pointless questions

 

"Well-regulated militia," you idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So if we outlaw guns in one area but not another the area that has them outlawed will be able to get guns from another area? You area brilliant. And I will give you credit for saying that criminals will still get guns. Anyone intent on causing harm to other will ALWAYS find a way to get the implement to do so. And if going forward we outlaw guns there will still be enough guns out there for the criminals to find. The issue is not the guns nor their availability. It's the fact that we have mentally ill people. Once again that's the common thread we can actually do something about. Stricter gun laws may help but won't do much to solve the problem.

Other countries have banned guns and its worked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I'd like to address that point about a local law in a nation awash with guns. If one area outlaws guns but the surrounding areas don't, criminals will still get guns. Ok, maybe the problem needs to be addressed in a larger way.

Ever read Jefferson's first inaugural address? Who did he say was the militia? And if they are regulated, what does that include?

 

 

Seems to prop the door wide open to me

The militia is formed from the people, however the people are not primarily militia. The document does not call for the people to be heavily regulated either. Only to be regulated when they come together as militia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So your suggestion to "fix" the problem is 100% impossible. Thanks for your contribution.

 

Oh and BTW which countries have banned guns?

Just throwing it out there, not saying I support going that far...yet

The militia is formed from the people, however the people are not primarily militia. The document does not call for the people to be heavily regulated either. Only to be regulated when they come together as militia.

So its not so clear cut, exactly my point. Open to interpretation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LONDON — After the shooting at Umpqua Community College, a visibly angry President Obama pointedly noted the contrasting responses in the United States and its allies to gun violence.

“Other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” he said on Thursday. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

In Australia, Britain and Canada, mass killings have had a mobilizing effect and resulted in changes to laws and regulations.

Australia

The turning point was in April 1996, when a man armed with semiautomatic weapons killed 35 people and wounded 23 in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

The national outcry that followed led to the rapid introduction of tight restrictions on firearms, including a ban on almost all automatic and semiautomatic rifles, as well as shotguns.

John Howard, who had only recently become prime minister when the legislation was enacted, said the process was not easy.

The effort required each of Australia’s states and territories to enact their own laws, called for an ambitious gun-buyback program that led to the recovery and destruction of more than 600,000 weapons, and imposed a one-time tax on all Australians.

Some of Mr. Howard’s center-right coalition supporters, including rural residents who had long owned guns, resented the fact that they had to give up their weapons because of the criminal behavior of others, Mr. Howard wrote in 2013 in The New York Times.

But Australia also had fewer barriers than the United States to enacting gun control: There is no constitutional right to bear arms, and there are no pro-gun lobbying groups with the influence of the National Rifle Association.

“In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons,” he wrote, adding, “Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.”

Although the restrictions have not eliminated gun crime — two people were killed in a shootout on Friday in the Sydney suburb of Parramatta — there have been no gun massacres, defined as having more than four victims, since the laws were put in place in 1996.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/europe/australia-britain-canada-us-gun-legislation.html?_r=0


 

Once again. What countries have banned guns?

Why are you asking me when you can do your own research? Lazy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/europe/australia-britain-canada-us-gun-legislation.html?_r=0

Why are you asking me when you can do your own research? Lazy

 

 

Why should I research your assertion that there are countries out there that have banned guns? You used it as an argument for gun control so please tell me what countries have banned guns.

 

BTW I have no idea if there are actually countries that have banned guns. I figured since you made the statement you'd be the best person to start my research with.

Edited by Chef Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...